By David Crystal

New from Cambridge University Press!

By Peter Mark Roget

This book "supplies a vocabulary of English words and idiomatic phrases 'arranged … according to the ideas which they express'. The thesaurus, continually expanded and updated, has always remained in print, but this reissued first edition shows the impressive breadth of Roget's own knowledge and interests."

BILINGUAL SPEECH: A TYPOLOGY OF CODE-MIXING, is perhaps the latestaddition to publications in the ever growing field of codeswitching.The striking feature of this book is the extensive amount of data itcovers and the depth of analysis it offers. The central questionaddressed in the book is &quot;how can a bilingual speaker combine elementsfrom two languages when processing mixed sentences (p. 1). Muyskenaddresses this question by drawing on various case studies, hence thesubtitle &quot;A typology of code-mixing&quot;, from recent research oncodeswitching. In so doing, he aims to provide a general account, not asingle model, of codemixing across languages and cultures. Three typesof code-mixing are distinguished, insertion, alternation, andcongruent lexicalization. The bilingual's choosing of one type of code-mixing or another is said to depend on the grammatical structures ofthe languages involved as well as on sociolinguistic andpsycholinguistic factors. The book consists of nine chapters, the lastof which is followed by an extensive list of references and an authorindex and a subject index. In what follows I provide a brief summary ofeach of the chapters. This will be followed by a general evaluation ofthe book.

Chapter 1, 'The study of code-mixing', presents the general aim of thebook, namely, to explain 'how bilingual speakers switch from onelanguage to another in the course of conversation&quot;. In an attempt toaddress this question, Muysken distinguishes between the three types ofcodemixing patterns already mentioned: (a) insertion, (b) alternation,and (c) congruent lexicalization. Both 'insertion' and 'alternation'focus on structural constraints on mixing. The former views constraintsin terms of the structural properties of one language, the matrixlanguage; the latter [alternation] views constraints in terms ofstructural equivalence between the languages involved (i.e., switchingis possible only where it does not violate the structural integrity ofeither of the participating languages (Poplack 1980)). 'Insertion' issaid to be akin to spontaneous lexical borrowing and, depending onlanguages, it may consist of single bare nouns, bare noun phrases (p.95) or adverbial phrases (pp. 3, 5). 'Alternation' entails a trueswitch from one language to the other, and involves both grammar andlexicon. 'Congruent lexicalization' refers to a 'a situation where theparticipating two languages share a grammatical structure which can befilled lexically with elements from either language (p. 6). It is saidto resemble style shifting and variation within a language. The secondhalf of this chapter presents a typology of constraints oncodeswitching, with a focus on Poplack's (1980) Equivalence andMorpheme constraints; Myers-Scotton's (1993) Matrix Language FrameModel, and Di Sciullo, Muysken, and Singh's (1986) governmentconstraint. Also, an attempt is made to bring all these constraintsunder one roof, or what Muysken calls 'Unification and the escape hatchmodel', which explains how mixing occurs in the three-way codemixingpatterns discussed: insertional codemixing, alternational codemixing,and congruent lexicalization. The chapter concludes with a descriptionof the structure and scope of the book.

Chapter 2, Differences and similarities between languages, attempts toaddress questions such as the following, among others: Is language a'fortress', with clearly defined boundaries both socially andcognitively? If languages are thought of as fortresses, what keep thesefortresses intact? How does code-mixing break into these fortresses?And how strong are the fences around a given language, both thosederiving from language as an identity carrier and from it beingembedded in a processing system? Muysken addresses these issues againstthe background of the distinction Chomsky (1986) makes between I-language (internal) and E-language (external). He then hypothesizesthat E-language and I-language are perhaps the two factors thatconspire in the building of fortresses. Viewed from this perspective,the E-language leads to separateness of outer form (defined byvocabulary, pronunciation and morphology), and the I-language to aclearly distinct inner form (marked in the syntax and semantics of thelanguage). However, Muysken presents evidence that I-language does notalways correspond to E-language. The evidence, discussed on pp.43-45,consists of the following cases: (a) several E-languages correspond toa relatively coherent I-language (e.g. Hindi and Urdu have one commonI-language); (2) several I-languages correspond to something perceivedas one E-language (e.g. patois, dialect, Quechua); (c) dialectcontinuum carved up into E-languages not directly corresponding to I-language borders (e.g., West Germanic continuum); (d) a bilingual E-language (i.e. a combination of modules from different languages)corresponds to components from various I-languages. The chapter thenpresents a sketch of the dimensions of typological differentiationbetween languages (e.g. word order, word class, syntactic categories,etc.), and of the history of the generative approach to languagedifferences. It concludes that codemixing patterns, whether insertion,alternation or congruent lexicalization have to do with the linguistictypology of the languages involved.

Chapter 3 discusses 'Insertion', with a focus on its grammaticaldimensions. Two main claims are made at the beginning of this chapter.The first claim is that phenomena such as borrowing, nonce-borrowing,and constituent insertion belong together and so are subject to thesame conditions. The second claim is that insertional codemixing can beappropriately accounted for within the government model proposed inDiSciullo, Muysken, and Singh (1986). Before Muysken justifies theseclaims, he outlines the characteristic features of insertionalcodemixing, drawing on Spanish-Quechua codemixing. Also, he raises twoquestions: How is a matrix language defined? What is the relationshipbetween lexical borrowing and insertion? These two questions have beenan object of on-going debate in current research on CM (see, forinstance, Codeswitching List) and so they are indeed worth raising.With respect to the features of insertional codemixing, Muysken saysthat insertions tend to be (a) content words rather than functionwords, (b) morphologically integrated constituents, (c) selectedelements (e.g., objects or complements) rather than adjuncts, (d)nested (i.e., the fragment preceding the insertion and the fragmentfollowing are grammatically related), (e) single, unique,constituents. The occurrence of either of the features of insertionalcodemixing is said to be determined by the matrix language. But how isthe matrix language determined? Muysken lists a number of approachesthat have been proposed in the literature. Some of these include (a)the language of conversation (the question remains of how we go aboutdetermining the language in question); (b) left-to-righ parsing, whichsays that the first word or set of words in the sentence determines thebase language; (c) morpheme-counting, i.e. the language with moremorpheme in the discourse is the ML. Other possibilities listed includedefining the ML from a psycholinguistic or a structural perspective;with the former referring to the most activated language for thespeaker, and the latter to the language of INFL. Like many CMresearchers before him (e.g. Poplack 1980), Muysken rejects a purelystructural definition of the ML because it leads to circularity. It iscircular to identify a language as a matrix language and then invoke itto explain the origin of system morphemes such as verbal inflections. Ishall return to this point in the final section of this review,critical evaluation.

Chapter 4, 'Alternation', presents a typology of alternational code-mixing patterns based largely on data from French/Dutch mixing inBrussels (Treffers-Daller, 1994). The patterns identified include,among others, non-nested mixing, long switches, emblematic or tag-switching, peripheral switches (e.g. coordination, clefting, left-dislocation, etc.). Besides these patterns, it is noted thatalternational code-mixing does also have other properties, among themembedding in discourse, doubling (repetition of a CM structure in bothlanguages in mixed clauses) and dummy insertion. The first of thesethree patterns is illustrated with data from Chinese/English, and thesecond and the third with data from Finnish/English. Halfway into thechapter functional elements such as discourse markers, conjunctions andadpositions are discussed with reference to codemixing involvingSpanish and an Amerindian language: the Mexican Otomanguean languagesPopoloca and Otomi, and the Andean language Quechua. This is followedby a discussion of discourse markers in Moroccan Arabic/Dutchcodemixing and, briefly, in French/Swahili codemixing. Drawing on deRooij (1996), it is explained that discourse markers occur inalternational codemixing because they are 'highly salient within thediscourse which they help structure' (p.114). The chapter concludeswith a discussion of word order in alternational codemixing.

Chapter 5 discusses the third major type of codemixing patterns,'Congruent lexicalization', with a focus on the following issues: (1)What are the main features of 'congruent lexicalization'? (2) Howdifferent is codemixing from language variation and style shifting? Canthese phenomena be studied in the same theoretical framework?Additional issues raised in this chapter have to do with languageconvergence. In particular, (3) does convergence facilitate codemixingor does codemixing pave the way for convergence? Muysken firstaddresses the question whether there is a difference between variationand codemixing. He argues that there is no difference between the twophenomena and so they must be collapsed. The justification for theproposed collapse, which I will not go into here, is given on pp. 124-126. As to congruent lexicalization, Muysken notes that it precludesthe notion of 'matrix language', that is, the languages involved sharethe grammatical structure of the sentence; any category can beswitched. Against this background, Muysken (pp. 128-134) lists thefollowing as the main features of 'congruent lexicalization', drawingon studies of language variation and style shifting: (a) linear andstructural equivalence, (b) mutli-constituent code-mixing, (c) non-constituent or 'ragged' mixing (Poplack 1980), (d) non-nested a b cstructures, (e) switching of function words (and any other category),(f) switching of selected elements (e.g. PPs), (g) bi-directional code-mixing, (h) back-and-forth switches, (i) homophonous diamorphs, and(j) morphological integration, (k) triggering (of CM by words from theother language), and (l) mixed collocations and idioms. These featuresare illustrated with examples from codemixing in several settings.

Chapter 6 , 'Function words', focuses on the distinction betweenlexical and grammatical categories or what Muysken calls 'functionalelements', and the role of the latter in codemixing. The discussion offunction words departs from the assumption that differences betweenlanguages derive from different characteristics of functional elements(e.g. agreement, tense, modals, auxiliaries, discourse markers, etc.).In codemixing the functional elements generally 'come' from onelanguage, the matrix language. Two hypotheses are tested concerning therole of the functional elements in codemixing. These run as follows:(a) The functional element effect derives from the special status offunctional elements within the mental lexicon and speech production, asargued by Myers-Scotton (1993) and Azuma (1993) on the basis ofassumptions made by some psycholinguists. (b) The functional elementeffect derives from the lack of equivalence of functional elementsacross different languages.

Muysken makes the case for the second hypothesis, noting that theevidence he offers for it is not conclusive. The discussion offunctional elements begins with the issue of how the elementsthemselves can be defined. Several criteria are presented, among them'open' vs. 'closed' class distinction (e.g., functional elements belongto closed class; whereas lexical elements (e.g. nouns and verbs) belongto open class); bound vs. free morpheme distinction (e.g., boundmorphemes are functional elements, whereas free morphemes are not);autosemantic vs syn-semantic element distinction (the former [e.g.content words] have concrete meaning and so can be modified, but thelatter [function words] have no independent meaning and so cannot bemodified) (pp. 157), to list just a few. Muysken then surveys a numberof areas in which he says the distinction between lexical andfunctional elements plays an important role. These areas includelanguage mixing, speech production, agrammatic speech, languagedevelopment, foreign talk, language change, creolization, and lexicalborrowing. In surveying these areas, Muysken distinguishes betweenthree different types of functional elements: shifters (e.g., pronouns,demonstratives, quantifiers, question words), functional categoriesproper (e.g. articles, tense markers, agreement, auxiliaries, modals),and linkers (prepositions, conjunctions, complementizers, connectives).The discussion then moves on, disjunctively, to the difference betweencontent and system morphemes, with a focus on plural markers, past andpresent participles, and pronouns. The main claim here is that thedistinction between content and system morphemes (i.e. between lexicaland functional elements) should be made in terms of equivalence. (p.172).

Chapter 7, 'Bilingual Verbs', examines the difference betweenalternation, insertion, and congruent lexicalization, with a focus onthe verb. Four types of bilingual complex verbs are distinguished, (a)inserted verbs: a guest verb is inserted into a position ordinarilyreserved for a host, native, verb; (b) nominalized verbs in a compound:a guest verb is a nominalized complement to a causative helping hostverb; (c) adjoined verbs: a guest verb is adjoined to a helping verb;and (d) infinitive verbs: a guest verb is an infinitive and thecomplement of a host auxiliary. Data is drawn from several languagepairs to provide evidence for the proposed typology of bilingualcomplex verbs. The author points out that no single analysis canaccount for all the bilingual complex verb constructions. The chapterconcludes by raising the question whether there exists a 'bilingualgrammar', a question that has been raised in earlier studies ofcodemixing (Poplack 1980, Myers-Scotton 1993, Kamwangamalu 1997).

Chapter 8, Variation in mixing patterns, summarizes what is known aboutthe relation between mixing patterns and extralinguistic factors. Thesummary focuses on three key issues: (a) What are the relevantgrammatical and extralinguistic factors influencing the choice of amixing pattern? (b) Is it possible to differentiate between bilingualcorpora in terms of the proposed three-way distinction betweeninsertion, congruent lexicalization, and alternation? (c) What factorsexplain best why an individual speech community shows one pattern ofcodemixing rather than another one? In order to address thesequestions, the author says, and I agree with him (see last section:critical evaluation), that one must take into account the varioussettings in which codemixing takes place: (i) the social definition ofthe bilingual situation on the macro-level (e.g., coloniallanguage/dominated language, migrant communities, bilingualism ofnative elites, etc.); (ii) the sociolinguistic difference betweencommunities on the meso-level (e.g. attitudes towards bilingualism andcodemixing, structure of linguistic domination (transplanted orendogenous bilingual community), etc.); (iii) duration of languagecontact; and (iv) the interactional setting on the micro-level (e.g.classroom, marketplace, etc). With respect to attitudes, it issuggested that insertion and congruent lexicalization occur mostly incommunities that are invariably favorable to language mixing. As tobilingual proficiency, it is noted that more fluent bilinguals tend todisplay congruent lexicalization and more complex insertional(intrasentential) codemixing; while alternation is said to becharacteristic of less fluent bilingual. In terms of dominance in use,it is suggested that in migrant communities, styles of codemixing willdevelop from insertion to alternation to congruent lexicalization. Inthis case, there is possibility for shift from one matrix language toanother across generations. And in terms of structural factors,codemixing involving typological similar languages will tend to lead tocongruent lexicalization; whereas in the reverse case (i.e. dissimilarlanguages) insertional patterns will occur. A key point made in thischapter is that of directionality in codemixing: insertional mixingtends to be unidirectional (from the host language to an alien one),alternational mixing tends to be bi-directional (see page 236).

Chapter 9, 'Codemixing, bilingual speech, language change, discussescodemixing and language change, the relationship between codemixing andother language contact phenomena (e.g., borrowing, interference, etc.),and bilingual language use/processing. With respect to bilingualprocessing, the author rejects theories that analyze codemixing(understood as clause internal switching) as an on/off phenomenon; thatis, that the participating languages are accessed sequentially, whenone language is on the other is off and vice versa (e.g. Poplack 1980,Myers-Scotton 1993). He cites evidence from psycholinguistic research(e.g. Grosjean, 1996) that calls for the 'bilingual mode' of speechproduction during codemixing, in which both languages are activesimultaneously. He stresses modularity, that is, both languages areaccessed at the same time, but different modules of each. The authorpresents data from several language pairs in support of the 'bilingualmode' approach to codemixing processing. In the data he examinesphenomena such as idioms and collocations in bilingual compound verbs,pro-drop, and delayed lexicalization. He concludes this section onbilingual processing by explaining how simultaneous access to bothlanguages may be realized: (a) both languages are fully present; (b)any one module can be selected from either language, but not from both.He seems to favor the second option, which he likens to Grosjean's ideaof 'chamber orchestra', &quot;where different languages play differentinstruments, as it were, in the chamber orchestra of sentence-production&quot; (p. 262). The idea of chamber orchestra of sentence-production entails division of labor for different modules (syntax,function words, phonology, lexicon, semantics). The author nextdiscusses language contact and language change, followed by a sketch ofthe relation between codemixing and other language contact phenomena.With respect to language change, Muysken focuses on the notion ofasymmetry between the languages involved in codemixing. FollowingThomason and Kaufmann (1988), he explains that in contact-inducedlanguage change, there is interference from the dominant languagewithin the subordinate language (i.e., borrowing under maintenance ofL1), or retention of features of the subordinate language whileshifting to the dominant language (i.e. interference under shift toL2). The chapter concludes with a survey of diachronic aspects oflanguage contact research, with a focus on relexification, languagegenesis, lexical borrowing, second language learning and substrateinfluence, convergence due to prolonged existence, and calquing andimitation of the prestige patterns (pp. 266-274). This is followed bysuggestions for further research in the area of bilingual processing.

CRITICAL EVALUATION:&quot;Bilingual Speech&quot; provides codemixing researchers with a wealth ofdata on codemixing patterns across languages. It is, to my knowledge,the second study that offers such a comprehensive typology ofcodemixing, the first one (again to my knowledge) being Kamwangamalu's(1989) doctoral dissertation entitled &quot;Codemixing across languages:structure, functions, and constraints.&quot; I would like to comment on oneissue and then raise another. My comment concerns the issue ofdetermining the matrix language in codemixing. I agree with Muyskenthat a structural approach to the matrix language is inappropriatebecause it leads to circularity, as explained earlier. However, it isnot clear what the author's own position is concerning this issue.Muysken concludes the discussion of the matrix language on a ratherambiguous note: &quot;a generally valid criterion for defining the ML ... ishard to find, but researchers have no trouble identifying it ... Thereis much evidence that CM is asymmetrical and involves a dominant, baseor matrix language.&quot; In a recent study, motivated by the debate onthis issue in the Linguist List (Vol. 10.1759, 30 November 1999),Kamwangamalu (2000) explains that studies that attempt to define thematrix language in codemixing do not take into account thesociolinguistic context in which codemixing takes place. He proposesthat in codemixing in a diglossic context (e.g. multilingualcommunities in Africa), the language identified as 'Low' (e.g., anAfrican language) tends to be the matrix language, and the oneidentified as High (e.g., English, French or Portuguese) the embeddedlanguage. It seems that diglossia is a useful theoretical construct inattempts to define the matrix language: the distinction between Highlanguage and Low language parallels the distinction between the matrixlanguage and the embedded language. In codemixing involving English,French or Portuguese with an African language the latter is usually thematrix language, and the former the embedded language (for details, seeKamwangamalu 2000: 200-204).

The question I would like to raise concerns the three-way distinctionthat Muysken makes between 'insertional codemixing', 'alternationalcodemixing', and 'congruent lexicalization'. Is there really a need forintroducing these 'new' concepts? To what extent does the introductionof these concepts advance our knowledge in the field of codeswitching(a concept that I am using as cover term for both intrasentential aswell as intersentential switching). How different is the three-waydistinction between 'insertion', 'alternation', and 'congruentlexicalization' from the classical distinction between 'codemixing','codeswitching', and 'lexical borrowing'? Muysken is not the firstcodeswitching scholar seeking to introduce new terms into the study ofcodeswitching/codemixing. For instance, in a study of Mexican-Americanchildren's codeswitching, McClure (1977: 97) distinguishes between twodimensions of codeswitching, namely, 'codemixing' and 'code-changing'.In particular, McClure writes that &quot;The children's codeswitchingappears to reflect the operation of two linguistic devices: 'code-changing' and 'code-mixing'. 'Code-changing', generally motivated bysituational and stylistic factors, is the alternation of languages atthe level of the major constituent (e.g. NP, VP, S). The code-change isa complete shift to another language system&quot;. She then defines 'code-mixing' as &quot;the individual's use of opposite language elements whichcannot be considered to be borrowed by the community&quot; (McClure, 1977:98). Rather than shed light on children's codeswitching, McClure's andrelated studies added to the complexity of an already complexphenomenon, codeswitching. In this regard, Baker (1980:1), in anarticle aptly titled 'Categories of codeswitching in HispanicCommunities: untangling the terminology', observes that &quot;the researchwhich has been done on 'codeswitching' in Hispanic communities of theUnited States is confusing and difficult to understand, not onlybecause of different samples and methods but also because of theoverlapping terminologies employed to describe codeswitchingcategories&quot;. Baker's point, made twenty years ago with regard tocodeswitching in American Hispanic communities, applies equally tocurrent studies of codeswitching, including &quot;Bilingual Speech&quot;. In myview, there seems to be no need to rename existing codeswitchingcategories. The distinction between 'insertion' and 'alternation' isparallel to the classical distinction between 'code-mixing' and'codeswitching', where the former refers to intrasentential switching,and the latter to 'intersentential switching'. Likewise, 'congruentlexicalization' corresponds to 'borrowing' (since one of the featuresof 'congruent lexicalization' is 'morphological integration'). In thisregard, Muysken writes: &quot;a frequent feature of 'congruentlexicalization' is the incidence of MORPHOLOGICAL INTEGRATION&quot; (p. 134,emphasis added). Now, compare this statement with the following, whichMuysken makes about 'insertion': &quot;.. another diagnostic feature ofinsertion [is] MORPHOLOGICAL INTEGRATION*&quot; (p. 63, emphasis added).&quot;Insertions tend to be single* often MORPHOLOGICALLY INTEGRATEDCONSTITUENTS (p. 64, emphasis added). If 'insertion' and 'congruentlexicalization' involve morphological integration, why is it necessaryto distinguish between the two in the first place? There are severalinstances in &quot;Bilingual Speech&quot; that show that the book simply recyclesexisting codeswitching categories, namely intrasentential andintersentential codeswitching.. Consider, for instance, the following:&quot;Bilinguals dispose of two grammars and lexicons, and the lexicons canbe viewed as one large collection that consists of several subsets.THUS LEXICAL BORROWING COULD BE TERMED LEXICAL SHARING (p. 69, emphasisadded). Note that it is this 'sharing' that constitutes the basis forone of the proposed three 'new' categories of codeswitching, namely,'congruent lexicalization'. Further, consider the distinction betweenthe other two categories, 'insertion' and 'alternation'. In thisregard, Muysken writes, &quot;Insertion is mostly a form of unidirectionallanguage influence, while alternation often goes both ways. INSERTIONIS CONSTITUENT-INTERNAL, ALTERNATION IS PHRASE- OR CLAUSE-PERIPHERAL&quot;(p. 75, emphasis added). &quot;'Insertion' is akin to (spontaneous) lexicalborrowing, which is limited to one lexical unit.&quot; &quot;In the case ofalternation, there is a TRUE SWITCH FROM ONE LANGUAGE TO THE OTHER,involving both grammar and lexicon&quot; (p. 5, emphasis added). Thisdefinition of 'alternation' echoes McClure's (1977) definition of whatshe terms 'code-changing', which also entails a complete shift/switchfrom one language to another. Another point that concerns me is that,Muysken appears to lump style-shifting and codemixing together. Theauthor writes: &quot;The phenomenon of style shifting can be seen as onesubtype of code-mixing, namely congruent lexicalization&quot;. My questionis: doesn't codemixing presuppose competence in at least two languages?If so, in what ways can codemixing be equated with style-shifting.Also, the two terms, style shifting and codemixing, make totallydifferent claims about the competence of the individual speaker: 'styleshifting' can occur in both monolingual and bilingual speech, but asPfaff (1979:295) rightly points out, codemixing is necessarily aproduct of bilingual competence. In spite of my skepticism about theusefulness of the three-way distinction Muysken makes between'insertion, alternation, and congruent lexicalization', I must say thathis book, &quot;Bilingual Speech&quot;, is a welcome addition to publications oncodemixing, especially in terms of the amount and variety of data itmakes available to professionals in this field.

Kamwangamalu, Nkonko (2000) INFL as a marker of matrix language incodeswitching in a diglossic context. In Arika Okrent and John P. Boyle(eds.) The Proceedings from the Main Session of the Chicago LinguisticSociety's Thirty-sixth Meeting, Vol. 36, 1: 197-207.

About the reviewer:Nkonko M Kamwangamalu holds a PhD in linguistics from the University ofIllinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois. He has taught English languageand linguistics at the National University of Singapore and theUniversity of Swaziland and is currently Associate Professor ofLinguistics at the University of Natal in Durban, South Africa. Hismain areas of research interests include multilingualism, codeswitchingand codemixing, language policy and planning, new Englishes, andAfrican linguistics.